Saturday, April 26, 2008

During the last few days’ controversy, our email has run the gamut, ranging from the “you Nazi swine!” type of disagreement, through polite disapproval, all the way to strong support and agreement.

It’s good to have the support, but I also respect principled disagreement. I value a well-reasoned argument against me, because I’ll read it carefully, and think about it. It might change my mind, or it might make me put together a stronger case defending my position. Either outcome is a good one.

I received a dissenting email this morning which was intelligent and friendly, and deserves a public response.

First I’ll post the full email, and then I’ll address it point by point. This will be a long discussion, so get yourself a cup of coffee and a doughnut if you intend to read beyond the jump.

Dear Gates of Vienna Editors,

It seems to me that you have made a very poor editorial choice by publishing the “genocide” article by the pseudonymous El Ingles. I’m sorry to see that, because like you, I believe that it is better for people worried about the future of Europe to cooperate with each other rather than waste energy fighting each other. We should be seeking allies, even if we have some disagreements. Normally I’m very sympathetic with your viewpoint, but I must say that in an effort to show your independence, you’ve walked into the trap of seeming to validate your critics.

The “descriptive”-vs-“prescriptive” dichotomy is literally true but rhetorically dubious. Once you start opening your mind to the suicide option of genocide, you are crossing an intellectual divide that has a pretty miserable history. So you are playing with fire, and I’m sure that you know you are doing that.

The reasoning of El Ingles is also debatable. History does not often pose simple a, b, c choices. It is entirely possible over the next decades that a substantial fraction of Europe’s Muslim population will modernize and assimilate to European Enlightenment values. If you know about Wafa Sultan and other heroic figures who are fighting the Wahhabi-reactionary wave of influence, you will see genuine resistance to the medieval throwbacks in Islam. In fact, as you know, a long-lasting wave of modernism swept over the Muslim world earlier in the last century, and has only been pushed out of sight by the wave of Saudi-funded missionaries who manage to control the discourse. The modernists are still there (as in Turkey) but they are now keeping their heads down.

You are giving in to despair about population trends. I understand that, but it is not effective politically, and it may not be accurate. For example, in the case of Britain, there’s reason to think there will be a renewal of modernism within the Muslim population, combined with Eastern European (Catholic or Orthodox) immigration, combined with a more sensible (and hopefully democratic) EU policy. Certainly Sarkozy, Merkel, and perhaps Brown must be thinking along those lines. Over a decade or two, that may substantially dilute the influence of destructive radicals. The British public is now tired of Labour, which has carried out disastrous immigration policies, and may be swinging to the Tories. While the Conservative Party is now still taking an old-fashioned multicultural line, once it is in power it will have to deal with the consequences in reality. With frequent bomb plots going on, it will take only one crisis before they may have to introduce far better immigration policies.

When more Muslim countries acquire nuclear weapons, which may be inevitable, that is also bound to shock European opinion. Add continued security challenges, and the public pressure for sensible immigration controls is likely to flip. The difficulty is there is a power elite still locked into an unworkable multicultural mind-set. Nobody believes in that any more. The situation is therefore very similar to the atmosphere of crisis that elected Margaret Thatcher, or for that matter Winston Churchill.

So the counsel of despair is understandable but premature. I understand the need to sound the alarm, in a media culture that has been oppressively Party Line, to say the least. That is a very important function of free speech. I don’t quarrel in the least with your right to publish provocative articles. It just seems to me that with this one, you have shot yourself in the foot.

I also understand how annoying it is to be constantly slandered as a proto-Nazi. It’s a toxic feeling. The temptation is to respond by giving the proverbial finger to the accusers. That is what I suspect happened in this case.

The fact is that saner voices are catching on in Europe, even though things are more frightening currently than they are in the United States or Australia. Changes are subtle, but pervasive. Some heroic figures are standing up in public, and the vast silent majority is open to them. With improved free communications — like “talk radio” via cell phones and the web — things can get better. Strategically, perhaps you should consider positioning your blog to take advantage of positive developments, rather than fighting what seems like an overwhelming tide of negativity.

I hope you see this as the thoughts of a friend. It is meant to be supportive. You can attract more bees with honey than vinegar. But I understand the temptation to go for the vinegar.

Now to answer your objections.

I’m sorry to see that, because like you, I believe that it is better for people worried about the future of Europe to cooperate with each other rather than waste energy fighting each other.

I agree. That’s why I choose not to fight with people who should logically be my allies. They may fight with me, but I won’t fight back. If I have a disagreement with someone who’s on the same team, I do my best to keep it private and work towards a compromise. This is the way to build a resilient and effective coalition of groups who share a common objective.

We should be seeking allies, even if we have some disagreements.

And so we are. Some allies refuse our overtures. Others insist that alliance be only on their own terms, terms which may well violate our own principles, or damage the mission. No alliance will be undertaken simply for its own sake.

Normally I’m very sympathetic with your viewpoint, but I must say that in an effort to show your independence, you’ve walked into the trap of seeming to validate your critics.

I’ve walked into no traps. El Inglés and I had discussed his article well in advance of its publication, long before any of the current brouhaha started.

In any case, I don’t take into account in advance the reactions of people who already consider me a “crypto-fascist” or a “Nazi sympathizer”. Why should I? What good would it do me to try to appease such a bloodthirsty idol?

The price is too high, and the possible payoff meager to non-existent.

Besides, letting the opinions of people who hate me dictate the terms of what I do is a way to let them live rent-free in my head. I won’t do it.

The “descriptive”-vs-“prescriptive” dichotomy is literally true but rhetorically dubious. Once you start opening your mind to the suicide option of genocide, you are crossing an intellectual divide that has a pretty miserable history.

I don’t agree. This fear of discussing awful possibilities is a version of “warding off the evil eye”. Don’t mention the awful event, or you might make it happen!

I don’t buy that kind of logic. People who refuse to examine clearly the horrendous possibilities that lie ahead of us are whistling past the graveyard.

World war was unthinkable in 1938. No decent person wanted to contemplate the possibility. The free nations of Western Europe were ready to do anything to avoid it.

And yet it came anyway, and was much more horrific, deadly, and destructive than it would have been if the political and cultural leaders of the day had listened to people like Churchill. In 1935 a clear-eyed, unflinching look at the likelihood of what lay ahead would have saved literally millions of lives.

We have an obligation to the next generation not to repeat the errors of the 1930s.

So you are playing with fire, and I’m sure that you know you are doing that.

That’s your opinion. I disagree.

The fire exists. I can see its light and feel its heat. I point to it and say, “Look out for the fire!”

As a result, people call me an arsonist.

I can live with that kind of unfairness. It’s just part of the price of doing business in the blogosphere.

The reasoning of El Ingles is also debatable. History does not often pose simple a, b, c choices. It is entirely possible over the next decades that a substantial fraction of Europe’s Muslim population will modernize and assimilate to European Enlightenment values.

What is the evidence for this? Can you provide statistics and cite your sources? I see no sign of what you describe. For every Muslim in the West who adopts the enlightened attitudes of modernity, or for every apostate who converts out of Islam without being murdered, there are ten thousand traditional fundamentalists who adhere to Koranic injunctions, and more arrive every day.

Where is the evidence that what you say is true? Besides someone else who simply asserts it as fact, show me a credible source that refutes me, and I will concede.

If you know about Wafa Sultan and other heroic figures who are fighting the Wahhabi-reactionary wave of influence, you will see genuine resistance to the medieval throwbacks in Islam.

Wafa Sultan is a brave and admirable woman who deserves all the support we can give her. But, as I mentioned above, for every Wafa Sultan there are thousands upon thousands of unregenerate traditional believers who rely solely on the Koran. They, in their myriads, believe that it is right and just to kill Wafa Sultan for her apostasy. Many of the people who believe this have been in the West for decades, or were born here. Speculating that the situation may become otherwise is wishful thinking.

And you’ll notice that Wafa Sultan — as well as other prominent apostates like Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Ehsan Jami — get virtually no support from the governments and cultural elites in their countries. In fact, they face active hostility, because they don’t behave according to their ethnic stereotypes, and have committed heresy against the reigning Orthodox Multicultural dogma.

Existing European policies, both official and unofficial, discourage assimilation and conversion out of Islam, and thus encourage the brewing of radical jihad ideology.

In fact, as you know, a long-lasting wave of modernism swept over the Muslim world earlier in the last century, and has only been pushed out of sight by the wave of Saudi-funded missionaries who manage to control the discourse. The modernists are still there (as in Turkey) but they are now keeping their heads down.

The pattern is this: when Muslim nations are defeated militarily, they tend to leave the strict sharia-based version of Islam behind and modernize to some extent. But as soon as circumstances warrant — as soon as the faithful are strong enough and/or threatened enough — a revival occurs. “The true Islam” re-emerges, and the jihad against Dar al-Harb resumes.

Right now Islam feels itself both strong and threatened. Its strength comes from the virtually limitless wealth generated by the petroleum windfall. It is threatened by the encroachment on all fronts of the West, with its decadent, pagan, vice-ridden, hedonistic, and irresistibly tempting culture. This combination of affluence and puritanical reactionary zeal is fueling a revival of classical Islam unlike any seen since the Ottomans fell back from Vienna in 1683.

So what likelihood is there that this revival will fade any time soon? Assuming that no alternative to oil is found, what will turn back the current tide of jihad except a massive violent reaction on the part of the infidels?

You are giving in to despair about population trends.

I am not in despair. You have chosen to read my opinions as motivated by despair, but you are mistaken.

If I were despairing, I wouldn’t have undertaken such a difficult, time-consuming, and thankless task as this one.

I understand that, but it is not effective politically, and it may not be accurate. For example, in the case of Britain, there’s reason to think there will be a renewal of modernism within the Muslim population, combined with Eastern European (Catholic or Orthodox) immigration, combined with a more sensible (and hopefully democratic) EU policy.

An attractive scenario. Once again, on what evidence do you base these claims? Opinion polls? Some other sociometric data?

Show me the sources. I certainly haven’t seen them.

Certainly Sarkozy, Merkel, and perhaps Brown must be thinking along those lines. Over a decade or two, that may substantially dilute the influence of destructive radicals.

C’mon, man, where have you been? Sarkozy and Merkel have already signed on to the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, which is the Eurabian pig all painted up with rouge and lipstick to make it look OK to the general public — assuming that the general public even wakes up long enough to pay attention.

I see no public evidence that what you predict shows any sign of happening. What do you know that the rest of us don’t?

The British public is now tired of Labour, which has carried out disastrous immigration policies, and may be swinging to the Tories. While the Conservative Party is now still taking an old-fashioned multicultural line, once it is in power it will have to deal with the consequences in reality.

It seems at least as likely that the next bomb plot in the UK will start a mass stampede to support the BNP, or simply inaugurate the descent into civil and political chaos that El Inglés has speculated about.

But I’ll defer to our British readers, of whom there are plenty. How likely is it that the Tories will regain any public confidence before the Troubles begin?

With frequent bomb plots going on, it will take only one crisis before they may have to introduce far better immigration policies.

Frequent bomb plots and one crisis — especially when accompanied by a continued failure to protect the public from immigrant (Muslim) violence and crime — will just as likely spark a civil insurrection. Why do you think your version is more likely?

When more Muslim countries acquire nuclear weapons, which may be inevitable, that is also bound to shock European opinion.

That’s an understatement. It may also shock Tel Aviv, Belgrade, and Rome into becoming glassy craters.

Add continued security challenges, and the public pressure for sensible immigration controls is likely to flip.

This is where you, I, and El Inglés all agree. The point of contention is about what lies on the other side of that “flip”.

The difficulty is there is a power elite still locked into an unworkable multicultural mind-set. Nobody believes in that any more. The situation is therefore very similar to the atmosphere of crisis that elected Margaret Thatcher, or for that matter Winston Churchill.

Yes indeed. And it’s important to remember what happened to cause Winston Churchill to be elected.

And we all better get down on our knees and pray to God that there is another Winston Churchill out there somewhere, waiting to be elected in 2011 or 2015 or whenever it is that European cities really start to burn.

Because I think it’s just as likely that a Lenin or a Castro or a Tamerlane is waiting in the wings, ready to deliver his country from the crisis by filling the mass graves with multiple hecatombs of anyone who gets in his way.

So the counsel of despair is understandable but premature. I understand the need to sound the alarm, in a media culture that has been oppressively Party Line, to say the least. That is a very important function of free speech. I don’t quarrel in the least with your right to publish provocative articles. It just seems to me that with this one, you have shot yourself in the foot.

So I’ll limp. It won’t be the first time.

I also understand how annoying it is to be constantly slandered as a proto-Nazi. It’s a toxic feeling. The temptation is to respond by giving the proverbial finger to the accusers. That is what I suspect happened in this case.

You see this as “giving the finger”. I see it as continuing to do what got me called a Nazi in the first place.

Once again, if I had to vet everything I say to make it acceptable to all the people who have declared themselves irrevocably against me, I’d never write anything that’s worth reading.

The fact is that saner voices are catching on in Europe, even though things are more frightening currently than they are in the United States or Australia. Changes are subtle, but pervasive. Some heroic figures are standing up in public, and the vast silent majority is open to them. With improved free communications — like “talk radio” via cell phones and the web — things can get better. Strategically, perhaps you should consider positioning your blog to take advantage of positive developments, rather than fighting what seems like an overwhelming tide of negativity.

If you think we don’t celebrate the positive developments, then you haven’t been reading GoV for very long. There may not be very many positive developments, but we sure do celebrate them when they come along.

In fact, we have celebrated one of the most positive European developments in decades: the rise of Vlaams Belang from a questionable fringe party to a mature, responsible, and effective political force. It is the most popular party in Flanders, and possibly the party most dedicated to civil liberties and the free market in all of Europe.

If you’re looking for constructive and lawful change in Europe, Vlaams Belang is everything that you would want in a political party, and the best that any European country is likely to get.

Yet there are many who don’t see this as something to celebrate, but who react with dread and scorn instead.

Funny about that.

I hope you see this as the thoughts of a friend. It is meant to be supportive. You can attract more bees with honey than vinegar. But I understand the temptation to go for the vinegar.

And I thank you for your friendly criticism.

But I don’t see what I offer here as vinegar. We simply have lots of exotic varieties of honey, and not all of them are to everyone’s taste.

In order to fully refute El Inglés, one must argue against some overwhelming statistics. Reposted below is that graph of immigration trends in the UK:

The vast bulk of the “Asians” are not assimilating, and radical jihadism is fermented in the toxic mix that gathers in the enclaves and no-go zones of large European cities.

The current trends all point to increased immigration. The most heartening news — the revised rules on family reunification in Sweden, for example — only serve to damp down the acceleration just a little bit. The growth will continue at current rates for a while, and then maybe slow down a bit in five to ten years.

Given the relative fecundity of the newcomers versus the aboriginals, this means that even if immigration stops dead in the near future, the proportion of unassimilated Muslims within their host countries will more than double within a generation. And immigration is not going to stop dead in the near future — unless there is a major earth-shaking event in European politics.

All of the above is contingent on the assumption that current trends continue the same, or are only slightly ameliorated. We are heading for disaster if things continue as they are.

But things cannot continue as they are.

It’s not possible. The welfare state will collapse. The introduction of political Islam will likely spark a violent reaction from ordinary European citizens. Taxation policies are drawing the continent closer and closer to an economic meltdown.

Things can’t continue the same. The question remains: What form will the changes take?

Since the situation is a chaotic one, the future can’t reliably be predicted. But Gates of Vienna will continue to attempt a clear-eyed evaluation of all the possible scenarios.

39
comments:

This post is essentially the main reason why I think this blog is so great: there can be civil disagreement and discourse amongst people of differing opinions. People can write emails such as the one published here and there can be real refutations by those who disagree, as opposed to name-calling.

I thought as I read this that it's an interesting that those who call others Nazis (i.e. Little Green Footballs) often exhibit the most Nazi-like behavior (like censorship, refusing to properly argue with someone, and hypocrisy in general).

I found the original article an interesting look at what could or might happen. No where did I read a call for genocide or was there any hatred in it.

What I saw in the comments on the article was a hatred coming to the surface. Calling someone a Nazi because they don't follow the PC Party line or want a return to the aboriginal culture of their nation is wrong.

It is always those who are truly ignorant of history that use the term Nazi and racist. When one studies such historical entities, one understands what they are.

I know from reading here the views are neither Nazi nor racist. They are the views of people who see their culture, their way of life, being destroyed by a group of people intent on destroying it by any means.

I applaud Gates of Vienna for having an open forum for discussion. For not resorting to name calling, even in the face of such. And for allowing all points of view, even those diametrically opposed to theirs, a voice in the discussion.

The Freedom of Speech is one of the first things Jihadists will remove from any society.

I agree. What we need is to teach immigrants the news of a positive, uplifting religion that exists in the Western world. It is compatible with democracy, science and human rights, and sets the women free. It even survives without 'Holy' wars!

Apostates obviously need protection against those who do not like people switching to religions like this. Any decent state protecting freedom of religion will of course provide this protection without hesitation.

Baron,You should never, ever bow under the pressure of PC.It kills us and our free speech loving society.In fact PC is a more insidious form of censorship.I remember when I was on the other side of the Iron Curtain and the communist propaganda extolled the virtues of "self-censorship".And now, on the right side of the ex-curtain I have to fight the same battle, with the same enemy, painted differently.

"For example, in the case of Britain, there’s reason to think there will be a renewal of modernism within the Muslim population, combined with Eastern European (Catholic or Orthodox) immigration, combined with a more sensible (and hopefully democratic) EU policy. Certainly Sarkozy, Merkel, and perhaps Brown must be thinking along those lines. Over a decade or two, that may substantially dilute the influence of destructive radicals."To this one section of the email, I would have to say the author isn't considering what the Lisbon Treaty has in store for Europe, should it be ratified, which at this point in time, appears to be a certainty. If ratified, any idealistic notion of a more democratic EU will become a rude awakening to undemocratic rule.The UK will have no control over the immigration policies of the self-annointed elites in Brussels, nor will all European countries.While I find it interesting that so many willingly or unwillingly failed to observe the descriptive nature of El's post, I don't think their lack of reading comprehension justifies any angst on the part of GoV.

The lack of evidence for statements of claim is something I noticed in the shrinkwrapped hitpiece too. Needless to say, statements that pair "vast majority" and "Islam" are immediately suspect, in the same way that Canadian politicians' use of the term "Canadians want..." is almost always a statement of wishful thinking rather than anything remotely resembling fact.

But some of the claims lately made by those who would position themselves in pseudo-academic robes are simply ludicrous. Take for example shrinkwrapped's assertion that "...vast majority [of Muslims]have no interest in entering an existential fight they know they would lose." This carries about as much weight of truth as a statement claiming that the vast majority of Tiger Sharks don't like the taste of human flesh. Not only is it irrelevant to the precautions one ought to take when around Tiger Sharks, but there is not a shred of evidence to support the assertion in the first place. Not to mention the fact that there is rather considerable evidence that Muslims are not only engaging in such a fight, en masse, but that they are winning it hands down to boot.

Similarly, your emailer makes the statement that "Some heroic figures are standing up in public, and the vast silent majority is open to them." The first part is true, of course, but the second? Maybe it's true and maybe it's not, but there is very little evidence of either, and even if it is true, it supports El Ingles' thesis anyway. Since dissent is becoming for all intents and purposes illegal, what does this "open"[ness] do, other than create the conditions of a pressure cooker?

"For example, in the case of Britain, there’s reason to think there will be a renewal of modernism within the Muslim population, combined with Eastern European (Catholic or Orthodox) immigration, combined with a more sensible (and hopefully democratic) EU policy. Certainly Sarkozy, Merkel, and perhaps Brown must be thinking along those lines. Over a decade or two, that may substantially dilute the influence of destructive radicals."To this one section of the email, I would have to say the author isn't considering what the Lisbon Treaty has in store for Europe, should it be ratified, which at this point in time, appears to be a certainty. If ratified, any idealistic notion of a more democratic EU will become a rude awakening to undemocratic rule.The UK will have no control over the immigration policies of the self-annointed elites in Brussels, nor will all European countries.While I find it interesting that so many willingly or unwillingly failed to observe the descriptive nature of El's post, I don't think their lack of reading comprehension justifies any angst on the part of GoV.

I cannot see how the EU can continue as any sort - even the most basic - of democratic structure. The days of being able to play up to all the various special interest groups- feminists/homosexuals/Catholics/Agriculture - is slipping out of their hands, mainly because of the incompatibility of Islam with western enlightenment Greco-Romano-Judeo-Christian .Islam simply cannot be bought off. It is an ideology as vicious as Communism and Fascism.

Nor does El Inglés pose them as simple. He clearly shows how each and every one of them is fraught with dire complications. One of his most vital points is that the complications are most frequently a direct result of ineffectual or subversive government.

It is entirely possible over the next decades that a substantial fraction of Europe’s Muslim population will modernize and assimilate to European Enlightenment values.

And over those “decades”, how many more “honor killings”, street assaults, home-grown terrorist attacks and carbeques will have happened? Any situations where Muslims have merrily assimilated into an entirely different culture are so rare as to be exceptions to what is otherwise an iron-clad rule.

Furthermore, are there even “decades” before an unrestrained MME (Muslim Middle East) becomes far more hostile and aggressive than it is now? The correspondent correctly cites Saudi financed Wahhibist influence but neglects to note how Iranian Shi’ites are equally determined to ratchet up tensions with their own violent dogma. The Wahhabist Sunnis are not sole actors in this ongoing jihad.

… there’s reason to think there will be a renewal of modernism within the [British] Muslim population, combined with Eastern European (Catholic or Orthodox) immigration, combined with a more sensible (and hopefully democratic) EU policy.

I’ll need to see much more conclusive evidence than just a hopeful statement like this one. Increasing radicalism among successive generations of immigrant Muslims and the EU’s descent into administration by fiat both militate rather strongly against the foregoing.

When more Muslim countries acquire nuclear weapons, which may be inevitable, that is also bound to shock European opinion.[Emphasis Added]

The writer strikes me as far too acquiescent. If this posture about the MME obtaining nuclear weapons is any indicator, then there would seem to be some native aversion to any forceful intervention that the issue of Islamic nuclear weapons literally demands at present. Any such aversion represents the exact sort of spinelessness which is so often found venting its spleen against the more well-considered positions of people like El Inglés.

The situation is therefore very similar to the atmosphere of crisis that elected Margaret Thatcher, or for that matter Winston Churchill.

Sadly, in this case, there is no Thatcher or Churchill waiting in the wings. Thus limiting the arrival of any last-minute savior to deus ex machinae and not much else. Far more likely is the coming of El Inglés’s “discontinuity” than any political white knight astride his charger.

So the counsel of despair is understandable but premature.

This is terribly, terribly wrong. The West is confronted with an enemy sworn to its destruction and much in favor of genocide itself. These facts on the ground demand careful consideration of what can only be direct offshoots of such circumstances. There is nothing “premature” with respect to counseling oneself about worst case scenarios in advance of such unpromising circumstances. History provides more than ample proof of how Muslim ascendancy represents the very worst possible case for recipient cultures.

I understand the need to sound the alarm, in a media culture that has been oppressively Party Line, to say the least. That is a very important function of free speech.

Given that, all through Europe, Free Speech rapidly is becoming an endangered species, is it not better by far to get these dialogues out into the public discourse before they are prohibited altogether? Increasing restraints upon freedom of expression lend just that much more urgency to shedding daylight upon subjects which the media and government alike are desperately trying to keep hidden from public awareness.

I also understand how annoying it is to be constantly slandered as a proto-Nazi. It’s a toxic feeling. The temptation is to respond by giving the proverbial finger to the accusers. That is what I suspect happened in this case.

Who is this ill-informed git? Gates of Vienna has been exemplary in its conduct with respect to the torrent of unwonted criticisms and specious attacks leveled at it and El Inglés. These onslaughts have been turned aside with polite but firm insistence upon civil exchange and granted more thoughtful replies than a host of other Internet sites might have obliged them with.

Strategically, perhaps you should consider positioning your blog to take advantage of positive developments, rather than fighting what seems like an overwhelming tide of negativity.

Once again, this author manages to misplace the reality of things. Gates of Vienna is one of those “positive developments” amidst brutal and violent Leftist or neo-Nazi groups residing at the current situation’s extremes.

Baron: Besides, letting the opinions of people who hate me dictate the terms of what I do is a way to let them live rent-free in my head. I won’t do it.

Supremely well said!

Baron: I point to it and say, “Look out for the fire!”

Or the odd locomotive, as the case may be, (snicker).

Baron: So what likelihood is there that this revival will fade any time soon? Assuming that no alternative to oil is found, what will turn back the current tide of jihad except a massive violent reaction on the part of the infidels?

For some inexplicable reason, the correspondent failed to address this niggling little issue.

Baron: It seems at least as likely that the next bomb plot in the UK will start a mass stampede to support the BNP, or simply inaugurate the descent into civil and political chaos that El Inglés has speculated about.

The looming prospect of such “civil and political chaos” is precisely why consideration of El Inglés’s premises is so important. Only El Inglés has seen fit to print up a libretto for this tragi-comic opera that details all of the hidden agendas currently being pursued. Even as the deafening silence of government and media alike risk every single negative outcome he mentions.

Baron: Yes indeed. And it’s important to remember what happened to cause Winston Churchill to be elected.

ZING!

Baron: immigration is not going to stop dead in the near future — unless there is a major earth-shaking event in European politics

Which—as I seem to recall—is El Inglés’s entire point. Odd, that.

Findalis: It is always those who are truly ignorant of history that use the term Nazi and racist. When one studies such historical entities, one understands what they are.

In this case it would be the genocidal Muslims—who, in a hideous moral inversion—continue portraying their unwilling Jewish victims as Nazis.

Finally, keep fighting the good fight, Baron. Your unwavering civility and insistence upon factual support of individual assertions in the face of such discourteous and unsubstantiated criticism is a model for us all.

I'm always impressed with the difference between the comments section of this blog and the comments section of LGF. Other than the banality of simply posting news items, one line observations, and the ever more frequent "open threads" on LGF, the comments section is telling. I've said unpopular things here and been hollered at by both Baron and Dymphna, but if one says unpopular things there, one is banned out of hand. And that doesn't even address the calibre of posts in each. On LGF, one has to wade through 100s of dronemindless one liners punctuated by the occasional "yeah, what he said" posts before finding anything of any substance. And once one does, the person who wrote it is as often as not banned for it anyway. Hell, I've been banned twice from LGF for simply disagreeing with the hegemonic dictates.

LGF is a social club for losers with no real faculty for thought, and whose main object in posting there is to boo and hiss or applaud according to the appropriate cue, like a 1990s chatroom.

The term "The Lisbon Treaty" will live in as much infamy as does the phrase "The Inquisition."

It's a nightmare...one of Stephen King's locomotives bearing down the track, but this one is real.

Fjordman wrote me about it some months before it was more than a line in a newspaper but I couldn't bear to look.

Come to think of it, King writes so much about machines out of control because when he was four he saw his best friend run over by a train.

A French psychiatrist, whose name I have forgotten, writes about the effects of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide on the survivors. She noted that many of the Armenians who came to Paris afterwards became hairdressers. She speculated about their choice of work, wondering if it was at all related to seeing so many beheadings.

Which made me think of all the South Koreans who settle in the US and open manicure salons. They seem to do a good business in exotic fingernails...I wonder what happened to the North Koreans who attempted to flee South during the "conflict" and what family mythology runs through that, unmetabolized and unprocessed.

Not being very familiar with that part of history, I don't even know how to phrase the question to Google.

You remind me a painful experience the other day. I haven't been over to LGF since December, when I gave Chazzer up for Advent. But we were in the midst of a minor lizard 'lanche and that surprised me since I know (people email his comments to me) that he shakes a stern finger at any commenter with the temerity to put up a link to GoV.

You're right about the mindlessness. It has definitely increased, maybe geometrically. When there are so many verboten issues, what's left to talk about except your Aunt Hattie?

One guy, whose name I don't recall, announced that his prostate cancer was getting worse. My heart fell as I scrolled thru the comments looking for someone, anyone, to address his pain and fear...but it was as though he hadn't commented. Or maybe somehow I just didn't see the outpourings of sympathy.

FInally, when he announced good night, someone took pity and told him "good luck."

I ain't going back. That group is suffering from head wounds...ugh.

My decision at Advent was the right one. 'Tweren't no sacrifice at all, at all.

dymphna,I first heard of the "turnip" here, months before the Lisbon cabal, and I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and what I was hearing.I asked some people I know, that were going to Europe last year, with many different stops to make some inquiries. One couple I talked with about it were completely unaware that the EUSSR was being planned, and vowed to ask their hosts in Paris what their impression was. They later related that their hosts in Paris said it was nothing, all it was going to do was make the EU President's term longer. (???)That was basically the understanding so many in France were being given by the media, as though the vote against the EU Constitution had nothing to do with it.I was, and am still astounded, that so many could be so thoroughly misinformed, about something as vital as their freedom and liberty.For any that have considered nationalism a nasty word, time is running out for it's use.I wouldn't attempt to speculate as to why the Armenians or SKoreans have sought such professions. The variables are too many to consider.

"So what likelihood is there that this revival will fade any time soon? Assuming that no alternative to oil is found, what will turn back the current tide of jihad except a massive violent reaction on the part of the infidels?"

"When more Muslim countries acquire nuclear weapons, which may be inevitable, that is also bound to shock European opinion."

-- Some Muslims countries are running out of WATER and are consequently running out of WHEAT. Alternative energies were found already. --

Take for example shrinkwrapped's assertion that "...vast majority [of Muslims]have no interest in entering an existential fight they know they would lose." This carries about as much weight of truth as a statement claiming that the vast majority of Tiger Sharks don't like the taste of human flesh.

ShrinkWrapped, like his Sanity Squad colleagues, is a liberal, and thus his assertions are not grounded in facts, but in his commitment to liberalism and the idea that Muslims are just like the rest of us. If he were to consider the actual reality, that would involve violating his commitment to liberalism, and by consequence would make it impossible to retain his current view of the world.

The author of this email is being to optimistic. And it is not good to be optimistic when it prevents us from seeing the dangers around us or when it impels us to do or say what we think "is for the better" without taking negativity to the equation, because in reality, the "better" usually stays in the idealistic world.

The problem here is, once more, Political Correctness:We all have the right to have an opinion but we all also have the duty to prevent saying what's on our mind, if it is not polite or may hurt somebody. I agree.

What we can not do, is, as Enoch Powel said, stay quiet when we see the world going down, just because it may perturb somebody (that's why it is a "Man's job", once women and children should be protected from the harsh reality to maintain, to a certain extent, their "kindest instincts"). It's our duty to alert our kind, to the danger posed by the other (that's why the dogs bark, and you can not get anything like canine fidelity in the Human world). We do not have at all the right to remain silent.A dog that does not bark, is a not a dog, a person "who does not bark" is a TRAITOR.

And if it involves genocide or the end of the world, well, so be it!

El Inglés is not an optimist; he is one of the two, a pessimist or a realist. And he did not behave like a traitor. He elaborated an essay that dealt with moral/ethical issues and is the exact lack of intelligence... or better, the mental laziness of us Europeans that is creating all this. We can not now, because we are mentally lazy, think weather it is right to kill this or that person in a given circumstance. We can't even discuss it, because we assume that to kill is wrong.BS. In the past, when we faced annihilation - of any kind - we would kill "the other" without any moral/ethical problems. Now, we ask, is it morally wrong to perish?

What a silly question. The one who wrote the email said:

"It is entirely possible over the next decades that a substantial fraction of Europe’s Muslim population will modernize and assimilate to European Enlightenment values."

Yes, and in 2028, when "ethnics" are 35% of Europe, what will your position be if/when somebody brutally rape and torture your daughter or grand-daughter to death just because she was "too attractive" and displayed an ankle? Will you ask for assimilation?

And if/when the police can not imprison the responsible because it is a "politically sensitive issue"? Will you ask for "justice"? We can not ask for justice, we have to create justice around us, at least for our family or friends. It simply does not come from heaven. What you do today will have an impact on the "justice" of tomorrow.

Another scenario, imagine an assimilation. How many successful inter-ethnical/inter-racial marriages do you think are successful?

I am used to the cries of racism but it has nothing to do with racism, nothing at all. I will briefly explain why. Of course some of those kinds of marriages are successful. What's the secret?

How many of those marriages are based on weakness of one of the counter parts? How many are based simply on exoticism? How many are based on a mere "mejoramento de la razza" as the Mexicans put it, "climbing the social status"? How many are just based on a revolt against a society or a bunch of values (as in the Novel the Satanic Verses of Salaman Rushdie)? How many are based on the "this must be the best... for now" or fashionable multiculturalism mentality?

The gross majority.

How many are based in real love or real mutual appreciation? The minority of well succeeded marriages. All the others are based in empty ideas, nihilistic ideas that can sustain a relation for three, five years but not for a life. I don’t think it to be racism.

Why the hell does it have to be an assimilation if it is a fake and fragile one?

I prefer a war and some genocides to perish after a long period of mistrust and decadence. Look at Japan and South Korea and look to Brazil or the U.S. What are the most divisive societies?

"in the case of Britain, there’s reason to think there will be a renewal of modernism within the Muslim population, combined with Eastern European (Catholic or Orthodox) immigration, combined with a more sensible (and hopefully democratic) EU policy."

What if nothing of that happens? What's wrong about thinking it is not going to happen if all we see is indicators in the opposite way?

"With frequent bomb plots going on, it will take only one crisis before they may have to introduce far better immigration policies."

With already a minority of 10% "ethnics" inside of the U.K., 70% of which are muslims, the problem will not be solved. In 2010 London will be predominantly "ethnic" and white flight will increase; Birmingham is already predominantly "ethnic". When the "ethnics" are empowered in the larger cities, do you think they will stand back? Also, the "ethnics" multiply like rabbits. If the muslims and the leftists can successfully put out their plans to divide the society between two lines, it will be messy and a genocide might happen. Those lines would be:1)all minorities united against the mainstream (by islam, or a leftist ideology, it is not all that difficult)2)leftist non hypocrite whites that will in one or two generations be "brownified" or perish3) The general population with a Conservative/Nationalist stand (or just hypocrites) that will be some 50% of the population.

When there is a balance of power, or a given group feels oppressed by another group, genocides usually emerge.

"there is a power elite still locked into an unworkable multicultural mind-set. Nobody believes in that any more."

Please, come to Europe and ask that to the highly educated average guy. Or to the average women.You will be surprised to find that many Europeans still consider multiculturalism and progressiveness good sounding words.

"the West, with its decadent, pagan, vice-ridden, hedonistic, and irresistibly tempting culture. "Sorry Baron, but... what does pagan means in this context?

Just wondering... I am no Nazi apologise but I am interested in History. Censorship, refusing to argue, hypocrisy reminds me more of the Soviet Union, the European Union and my own local tranzi elite (teachers included) than Nazi German properly.Just wondering...

If GoV allows others to dictate what can and cannot be discussed here, it loses its reason to exist. Probably the readership here is pitifully small, and it's unlikely there's a Churchill among us. But thanks to the inadvertent aid of LGF and Dr Shrink, maybe one will visit and find her or her calling. This is no more improbable than the notion that those millions of moslems in Europe will wake up one day with a fervent attachment to the ideals of the Great Enlightenment.

PS: I think a De Gaul would be a better man for the task ahead than a Churchill.

As a member of LGF I have watched this LGF antagonism closely. The latest round has shifted my opinion even more in favor of Gates of Vienna. Charles is just not giving you a fair deal.

I am not impressed by liberal, PC, morally ambiguous, weak-kneed approaches to the Islamic threat. After 14 centuries we should have learned by now that we are not going to successfully assimilate Islam. To survive, we must separate ourselves from them and them from us.

Stogie, I think you're in the vanguard of a shift, not just from LGF to GoV, but in wider opinion. Blogs are just blogs, but they represent and mark, I think, concrete opinion.

It was noticeable some time ago, when LGF made the mistake of adding that +/- rating thingy...I noticed that while his attacks on GoV et. al. had the usual lemminglike preponderance of +s, they had at best half the +s of most of his other cut and paste news items, which means, of course, that there were a good many -s to cancel out +s. Even there, a substantial silent minority took your side in the debate...not to mention the hordes who have been banned from LGF as a matter of course.

I believe people are waking up to the fact that we are living in a dangerous world, and that we have to start looking at it as more than a borg-like theoretical exercize at a teaparty held in the safety of anonymous cyberspace.

From a historical point of view, both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany exhibited the behaviors I enumerated (censorship, refusing to argue, and hypocrisy). The Nazis had a great deal of censorship because they had control of the media and they did not allow Germans to listen to foreign broadcasts while they were in power (of course, some people disregarded this and listened foreign radio such as the BBC). The Nazis refused to argue with their opponents - they just censored them and/or sent the to concentration camps because they did not want any opposition. And with regards to hypocrisy, there are innumerable examples. One that comes to mind is their obsession with the perfect "Aryan" human, yet many high-ranking Nazis (such as Himmler and even Hitler himself) could not be further from the Aryan ideal.

And of course, I'm sure there are many examples of such behaviors (i.e. censorship, etc.) in the Soviet Union and in modern leftism today.

Now I come to my most important point. You said that you thought what I enumerated was leftist behavior, not Nazi behavior. I would argue that they are essentially one and the same. Or, in other words, Nazism was a phenomenon of the left, not the right as we are commonly taught today. I came to this conclusion because of the excellent book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. If anyone has not read it, I highly suggest you buy yourself a copy and read it. It is highly interesting and convincingly argues and proves that Nazism and Fascism are of the left, not the right.

I began to read and stopped at:"History does not often pose simple a, b, c choices".

This sounds like a college professor used to standing aloof, not intimately involved in the necessity of making a choice. Sorry, but is it is the crucible of the moment that demands decisions: how hot the crucible is determines the nature of the decision.

Several factors go into making a choice, a decision: character, personality, preparation, experience, and the impossibility of certainty. I must add: the weakness or strength of the flesh.

The quote also is being used to delay the decision; to make us deny the obvious; to make us yield more of the battlefield to the enemy; and to give the enemy a stronger foothold.

We are faced with a simple question from Islam: will you submit, or will you die? Will you fight -- and to what extent: if you are not willing to acknowledge the possibility of the deadliest blow; if you will stop short of considering what is necessary to the point of even denying its use; then you have just decided to submit in the long run.

I spend a lot of time online with Muslims and I must say that although I don't have hard evidence, my impression is that Western ideas and culture are making a profound and even perhaps a religiously destructive influence on Muslims.

They argue about all sorts of ideas about their religion and many of them are ready to discard some of the more frightening aspects of Islam. A troll through Islam Online and other fatwa centers or a dip into the writings and YouTubes of Hamza Yusuf and other preachers popular with youth produce in me a similar impression.

I'm a friend of Bob Spencer's and I respect him a great deal. I am not saying that there is no reason to be fear the worst kind of Muslim domination.

But I tend to think that David Warren is right and that Islam is undergoing the challenge of its life and that is caught in a sort of death spiral which results in the sort of reassertiveness of the worst and most confrontational aspects of the religion.

This is reflected by the remarkable fact that there are huge numbers of conversions of Muslims to Christianity in dangerous places like Iran and Afghanistan, something unheard of in history before.

And I think the conversion of Westerners to Islam, the challenge of Muslims to debate the Bible along the lines of Ahmad Deedat and many other things are double edged swords that tear at the fabric of the religion and society as much as they advance its most frightening goals.

It's just impressions. I can't prove them. But they aren't based on nothing. And I don't believe they are just wishful thinking.

In reply to Natalie, I think the argument that nazism was left-wing is not helpful to deter accusations of racism and nazism. We know that Hitler believed in the aggressive defense/expansion of the Germanic race, while the left believed in internationalism. Most right-wing Europeans and Americans in the 1930s did not approve of Hitler's murderous methods, but even so, they were wary of immigration, while leftist agitators probably had no qualms about that. So, I don't think that immigration restrictionists are nazis any more than vegetarians are nazis (Hitler was a vegetarian), but still, regarding immigration and racial policy, I think an immigration restrictionist is closer to Hitler than a immigration enthusiast is.I think support for immigration is a left-wing phenomenon. Loyalty to one's own people is a right-wing ideal. What made Hitler left-wing was his preference for a totalitarian state, rather than his views on race. His views on race were not conservative. There was nothing conservative in the traditional sense about his lebensborn program, for example. But that program was equally at odds with the left-wing ideal of racial mixing.

Blogger Natalie said... at 4/27/2008 3:34 PM"...You said that you thought what I enumerated was leftist behavior, not Nazi behavior. I would argue that they are essentially one and the same. Or, in other words, Nazism was a phenomenon of the left, not the right as we are commonly taught today."== == == ==

Interesting, I was just reading John Ray's blog on the Left athttp://dissectleft.blogspot.com/2007_01_21_archive.htmlHe said "The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party"."

I was impressed by the discussion on the El Ingles article over at Shrinkwrapped. One thing that I came away thinking about was: (regarding "just enforce the laws as they already stand") - there are already the 700+ "no-go" areas in France; some British bishop has also said there are no-go areas in the UK (for which he was soundly rebuked).

The West is so successful because we-who-live-here have shared assumptions about fairness, sharing, taking turns, civility. We believe our laws are essentially fair and that we benefit by obeying them, therefore we do (generally) obey our laws. We don't have police states, we don't have "enforcers" to ensure we behave or else. And yet, and yet.... Sometimes there IS only a "thin veneer of civilization" separating us from anarchy. We've had riots in the US. My recollection is that the police try to quell the unrest, but if the disturbance is big enough and violent enough the police pull back and focus on maintaining a perimeter and keeping the violence from spreading.

So my question is: What happens when a large portion of the populace does NOT obey the law? WILL NOT obey the law? When they in essence become guerilla fighters attacking the state? In the case of the French riots and car-burnings: What are the French to do when they can't field enough police to safely enter a "seething Muslim stronghold"? Hire more? How many more? How long does it take to train them? How much money would be required to double --or triple?-- the police force? Would having so many police on duty RESULT in a police state? (So many men with state authority, with guns, standing around waiting for some reason to spring into action...)

What if Europe is faced with rising numbers of Muslims who refuse to be subject to civil authority; what if the "French troubles" spread? What if some European nations develop "mobile insurgencies" as seems to be happening in Iraq (wherever coalition troops are concentrated, the insurgents fade away, then pop up and terrorise an unpoliced area; when the troops regroup at the new trouble spot, the insurgents blend into the population then go and strike elsewhere)? I guess the short question is: how do you govern and control a population that absolutely REFUSES to be governed and controlled?

At one point I would have thought that any country faced with such a possibility would simply suspend immigration by the potential troublemakers while they figured out how to manage them. Any more, I believe that although INDIVIDUALS in government may discuss the what-ifs in small groups, GOVERNMENT POLICY (in Europe, the UK, Canada and the US) is to chant "It can't happen here, it won't happen here" and go on with business as usual. Now THAT is scary.